Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The case against Lt. Ehren Watada (Shocker: Times sides w/Army)
The Seattle Times ^ | January 9, 2007 | Editorial

Posted on 01/09/2007 1:00:08 PM PST by jazusamo

First Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade, U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, becoming the first commissioned officer to do so. He says he opposes the war — not all wars, but this one. So do we, but we cannot support his request to be excused from a posting to Iraq.

Soldiers have to go where they are ordered. That is the rule here and everywhere, and for reasons of military necessity. Watada was a volunteer, and knew that when he signed up. He knew about the Iraq war, as well: He signed up in 2003, the year of the U.S. invasion. He also should have known that once one joins the military, one loses the freedom to speak in ways that could damage soldiers' morale — a restriction that includes political criticism of the military's mission. We have seen this apply to generals, which is why their criticism of the war has come from retirees. The rule also applies to lieutenants.

Watada will soon face a general court-martial in front of a military judge and jury. The judge is now deciding whether to include four charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer," which rise out of Watada's political statements, or to try him only on the charge of refusing to go to Iraq. The possible sentence for refusing to deploy is two years; for the political statements, another four years.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiwar; iraqwar; watada
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: sionnsar; Maynerd; Bobsvainbabblings; moneypenny; Kaylee Frye; Clintonfatigued; wallcrawlr; ...

WA Ping...JFK


41 posted on 01/09/2007 6:03:05 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero

Exactly, He volunteered, He was not drafted. He has no excuse for what he is doing now.


42 posted on 01/09/2007 6:29:29 PM PST by pinkpanther111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Yikes! Mom and dad sure got that wrong. I believe both his parents are Hawaiian, weird they'd give him that name. I think they meant to name him Osama Bin Runnin. See I said I was done earlier and you made me take the bait.
43 posted on 01/09/2007 6:51:14 PM PST by lilycicero (Haditha Marines didn't run away!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111

Ya...and even though the uniform was a PROP for him...it didn't even make him look like a hottie.


44 posted on 01/09/2007 6:53:55 PM PST by lilycicero (Haditha Marines didn't run away!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sword_Svalbardt

Can't do an article 15(non judicial punishment) and conduct a court martial on the same charges.
He should be tried, convicted, demoted to E-1 then stood against a wall.


45 posted on 01/09/2007 6:59:45 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero

HeHeHe! :-)


46 posted on 01/09/2007 7:00:43 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

I want to live in your country.


47 posted on 01/09/2007 7:01:02 PM PST by lilycicero (Haditha Marines didn't run away!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero

Not even with that fancy jacket in post #7. :)


48 posted on 01/09/2007 7:26:35 PM PST by pinkpanther111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111

An Officer and a Gentlewoman.


49 posted on 01/09/2007 7:30:50 PM PST by lilycicero (Haditha Marines didn't run away!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111
Exactly, He volunteered, He was not drafted. He has no excuse for what he is doing now.

Watada does have a reason, or rationalization. I believe it goes like this:

(a) As a soldier, he swore to uphold the Constitution.

(b) The US signed the UN Charter, which has equal weight to the Constitution, as do all treaties, according to the Constitution.

(c) The UN Charter prohibits nations from invading other nations unless (1) The Security Council authorizes the invasion or (2) the invading nation acts in self defense.

(d) The invasion of Iraq failed the UN test in (c), and thus violated the UN Charter.

(e) A violation of the UN Charter violates the US Constitution, as per (b).

(f) Watada had to refuse to participate in violating the Constitution, as per (a).

50 posted on 01/09/2007 8:11:55 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: secretagent

Did anyone order a cup of Koffi?


51 posted on 01/09/2007 9:13:54 PM PST by lilycicero (Haditha Marines didn't run away!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
the larger story here, it seems to me, is the infrequency with which this sort of thing happens. if the war was truly going as badly as it is being reported, and it is so deeply unpopular, you would expect more cases like this one than the occasional one-off.

uh, wouldn't you?

52 posted on 01/09/2007 9:29:32 PM PST by smonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smonk

Good point, there are very few and he's the only officer I believe.

This smells of a set up anyway. His dad refused service during Vietnam and went in the Peace Corps. He's been an antiwar activist for some time.

His mom has gotten involved with Code Pink but I don't know if she had any dealings with them before he refused the assignment.

It almost looks like he accepted his commission with an agenda in mind.


53 posted on 01/09/2007 9:42:26 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

I was speaking of the Specialist from New Jersey...he did, indeed, enlist 3 1/2 years ago (per the article in my post).

But thank you for the attempt at correction. It's good to have a system of checks and balances! ;-)


54 posted on 01/10/2007 3:41:54 AM PST by jnygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Yes I think I read this rationalization in a interview he did.

However; The United States did not abdicate its sovereignty to the United Nations.

He swore an oath to the United States NOT the United Nations.

Thanks for providing that info... Really shows where their heads are at.
55 posted on 01/10/2007 6:35:44 AM PST by pinkpanther111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero

LOL!!!


56 posted on 01/10/2007 6:36:18 AM PST by pinkpanther111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111
The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

The oath is as follows:

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

Watada swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, which requires him by extension (he says) to not violate the UN Charter, since the US Constitution gives equal weight to treaties as it does to itself.

I don't know if he would accept the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of Constitutional conflicts.

57 posted on 01/10/2007 9:27:56 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
"Today, I speak with you about a radical idea," Watada told the gathering. "That to stop an illegal and unjust war, soldiers can choose to stop fighting it... If soldiers realised this war is contrary to what the constitution extols -- if they stood up and threw their weapons down -- no president could ever initiate a war of choice again. When we say, '...Against all enemies foreign and domestic', what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being. Our duty to the constitution is an obligation, not a choice."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0109-01.htm

I see a problem with this approach, if affirmed by the SC: soldiers framing convenient interpretations of the Constitution have an easy out.

58 posted on 01/10/2007 9:57:21 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson